Thursday, June 29, 2006

God-Given Wisdom? Or Not?

I found a really good article through a post link by SharperIron. Matt Walker takes issue with blogs and, as SharperIron points out, "The internet is basically a two-edged sword with the ability to both harm and help."

That may be quite true, but isn't it true of most kinds of communication in this world? The difference in the blogosphere is that people of differing opinions, beliefs, and worldviews can post and counter what the original authors have written. Previously, all that the general public could do to combat the liberal media bias was write 200 word letters (which may or may not get published), submit guest columns to newspapers (which may or may not be published) or, the most unproductive method of all, yell at their T.V. screens. Blogs have opened up a new kind of communications world that previously was severely lacking for the average, every-day American.

As I look forward to attending this year's GodBlog Conference 2006 in August, I recall that how Christians communicate in the blogosphere was front and center in many panel discussions last year. I came away with the view that if we worried about everything that we say (as Christian Godbloggers), then we probably would end up writing nothing! Is there such a thing as the perfect Godblogger? Of course not. However, Matt Walker shares some tips that we could all keep in mind to help us do a better job of representing Jesus Christ, the gospel, and His Word, the Bible.

Matt writes:

Thinking about this more in depth I personally counted four concerns I have over the nature of blogging as it stands now.

Posts are limited in their ability to communicate. What is lost in translation is the nuances of facial expression and vocal pitch. I have friends who might call me a moron (and they would be joking . . . I hope) to my face and I wouldn’t think anything about it because I can see their face and hear their voice. Posts do not give us that luxury. One is forced to read into the words and give the writer the benefit of the doubt.

Posts shroud the age and respectability of the writer. One thing that is virtually lost in a blog is the age of the writer and therefore the respect that should be afforded a post. I know some older men who have posted on blogs only to have their comments dismissed out of hand by much younger men who “know better.” That is a serious concern to me. We would not do that to their face but are willing to do that on a blog.

Posts offer instant responses. The lesson of being slow to speak is almost completely lost on a blog. How many times I remember my father’s advice about writing a letter, especially one that was critical. “Let it sit overnight and then re-read it in the morning. If you still feel that way then send it.” Usually, when following that sound advice, I destroyed the letter the next day. That is a much harder principle to follow when blogging.

Posts offer an atmosphere of much talking and little listening. Reading through a blogroll I am astounded by how many posts demonstrate that the original post text was not actually read. The sheer number of people talking is overwhelming. I wonder if anyone is actually listening.

These four concerns forced me to turn to Scripture for help. I immediately sought out the advice of Pastor James. His book on Spiritual Maturity seems like a bottomless well offering the best on the subject of how to deal with the blogosphere.

James offers his theme of spiritual maturity in 1:4 and closes his first chapter with three tests of maturity (in case any thought he had arrived) 1:26-27—the controlled tongue, compassion on the less fortunate, and separateness from worldliness. Chapter 2 lays out the arguments for the second of these tests. Chapter 3 lays out the arguments regarding the first test on the tongue. James says that the spiritually mature Christian will have a controlled tongue (which principles obviously apply to the blogosphere).

I like what James says about his own struggles in this area (3:2).

I also like his picturesque illustrations—the horse’s bit and the ship’s rudder, the fire and the poisonous animal, and the fountain and the tree. We find in vs. 3-4 the tongue’s power to direct; in vs. 5-8 the tongue’s power to destroy, and in vs. 9-12 the tongue’s power to delight. I thank Warren Wiersbe for this simple outline.

It is the next section though (3:13-19) that I find most helpful in discerning posts on the blogosphere, particularly vs. 17.

What James gives here is a simple formula for reading a post and determining whether it is full of true, God-given wisdom or not. If a post is filled with God’s wisdom then it will have a quality about it that pushes it above the rest. What are those qualities? Is it the skill in framing a question or controlling the argument? Is it the ability to smith words together? Here is what James says essentially in James 3:17 (my own paraphrase)

But the wisdom that comes from God is, first of all, innocent and chaste; then peaceable; appropriately mild and open to reason; it is considerate and humble; compassionate and beneficial, impartial and sincere.

There is no verse that describes the perfect post better than that one. It may be that the post is humorous or confrontational, light-hearted or serious, but it must have these qualities about it or it is just the wisdom of man. Being right about an issue does not mean that one is right before the Lord.

James chapter 3 is all about the "untamable tongue." Does the following not explicitly show why the clash of worldviews via blogs is currently raging strong in the blogosphere?

James 3:1-12

The Untamable Tongue
3My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. 2 For we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body. 3 *Indeed, we put bits in horses' mouths that they may obey us, and we turn their whole body. 4 Look also at ships: although they are so large and are driven by fierce winds, they are turned by a very small rudder wherever the pilot desires. 5 Even so the tongue is a little member and boasts great things.

See how great a forest a little fire kindles! 6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is so set among our members that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire by hell. 7 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by mankind. 8 But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God. 10 Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so. 11 Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the same opening? 12 Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? *Thus no spring yields both salt water and fresh.

Then, look at how James contrasts "heavenly vs. demonic" wisdom:

Heavenly Versus Demonic Wisdom
13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. 16 For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. 17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. 18 Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

3:3 NU-Text reads Now if.
3:12 NU-Text reads Neither can a salty spring produce fresh water.

Wow! There are weeks worth of study in these verses! Did you know that the term "wisdom" in the KJV of the Bible occurs 234 times in 222 verses? I'm not going to list them all, however, I will quote several verses that may help people to realize and recognize from whence their type of "wisdom" doth come.

Ask yourself, is the wisdom you are sharing of God or of man?

1Ki 3:28 And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God [was] in him, to do judgment.

1Ki 4:29 And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that [is] on the sea shore.

1Ki 4:30 And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt.

1Ki 4:34 And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.

1Ki 5:12 And the LORD gave Solomon wisdom, as he promised him: and there was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and they two made a league together

1Ki 10:24 And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart.

Pro 4:7 Wisdom [is] the principal thing; [therefore] get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Pro 4:11 I have taught thee in the way of wisdom; I have led thee in right paths.

Pro 8:11 For wisdom [is] better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.

Pro 10:21 The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom.

Pro 10:31 The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out.

Pro 11:2 [When] pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly [is] wisdom.

Pro 11:12 He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace.

Pro 12:8 A man shall be commended according to his wisdom: but he that is of a perverse heart shall be despised.

Pro 13:10 Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised [is] wisdom.

Pro 14:6 A scorner seeketh wisdom, and [findeth it] not: but knowledge [is] easy unto him that understandeth.

1Ch 22:12 Only the LORD give thee wisdom and understanding, and give thee charge concerning Israel, that thou mayest keep the law of the LORD thy God.

2Ch 9:7 Happy [are] thy men, and happy [are] these thy servants, which stand continually before thee, and hear thy wisdom.

Job 12:16 With him [is] strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver [are] his.

Speaking of Jesus:

Mat 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this [man] this wisdom, and [these] mighty works?

Luk 2:40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Luk 11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they shall slay and persecute:

Luk 21:15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

Godly wisdom given to the apostles and believers in Christ:

Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

Act 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Col 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

Col 1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

Col 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

The supremacy of Christ's wisdom; the Holy Spirit indwelled in the believer teaches the wisdom of God:

1Cr 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1Cr 1:20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Cr 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

1Cr 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

1Cr 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

1Cr 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

1Cr 2:4 And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1Cr 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

1Cr 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

1Cr 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

Jesus Christ, the only one who is worthy:

Rev 5:12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

Rev 7:12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, [be] unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

HT: SharperIron
Pastor's Corner

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Lost In A Sea Of Faces...

Here we go again. Why must homosexuals hold a "worldwide gay pride" parade in the holy city of Jerusalem? Why don't they spend all their time, money, and efforts helping the poor, housing the homeless, donating to St. Jude's hospital for children, or helping battered women in shelters? Why do they find it necessary to antagonize people of faith with their overt displays of fetishism, decadence and disgrace?

Remember the false accusations leveled by the militant gay activists' called the Pink "Angels" in Philadelphia last year? The false accusations against the Christian group called Repent America led to several arrests of the Christian protestors which led to the turmoil and trials of the group now called the Philadelphia 11. You can read much more at the link to my message board.

Why do I bring this up? Because apparently the gay activists didn't like the Repent America group coming onto their home turf - so to speak - but gay activists across the world wish to invade the holy city of Jerusalem for what can only be seen as an "in your face" kind of statement against people of faith.

OK. That was my "political portion" of this post. Now, I want to convey how to look at this through Christian evangelistic "eyes".

I was thinking about this situation while strolling outside yesterday. I wondered how many of these people are genuinely caught up into the deception that results in the mindset that Jesus spoke of when he was being crucified. Jesus said, "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

Luk 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

I do believe that many of the children and teens who are often dragged into these parades by their lesbian or gay parents have been brainwashed and duped into the homosexual indoctrination techniques vividly described by David Kupelian in chapter one of his book "The Marketing of Evil."

But what of the adults involved?

I often wonder how many are militant and radical gay activists and how many are just "along for the ride?"

How many might be reached for the gospel of Christ and how many would just stamp on the bibles and literature?

How many would be grateful to hear about the saving grace of Jesus Christ that will be offered through Christian evangelistic groups there?

How much is one soul worth?

I think that even if one soul is saved through this effort then it would be worth it. Remember what Jesus said about what "the world" and "one's soul" is worth?

Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Mar 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

The following article contains a statement that was signed by a Christian organization in Jerusalem called Bridges For Peace as well as two other Christian groups. My dear friend and sister in Christ, Susan Smith works for Bridges For Peace in the Holy City. She has often signed off her comments at my blog with, "Love from the Holy City of Jerusalem." Here's the article:

Christian groups slam J'lem gay parade

Leaders of three Jerusalem-based Christian organizations issue statement saying parade is provocative Ynetnews

Three major Christian organizations based in Jerusalem issued a statement condemning the World Pride gay parade planned for the city in August.

"We do so out of our great love and respect for Jerusalem, the only city in the world that the Bible decrees as holy," read a statement signed by the Bridges For Peace, Christian Friends of Israel and the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem.

The statement argued that organizers have planned the event in Jerusalem to provoke "those of biblical faith" and not because of the city's importance to the gay and lesbian community.

"The decision to hold this event in Jerusalem can only be seen as a calculated and confrontational act meant to provoke and offend those who adhere to timeless, biblical moral standards in the very place they hold most dear," the statement said.

It continued: "We stand in solidarity with the clear majority of Jerusalem residents who oppose this degradation of their city, and we urge the proper national and local authorities to reconsider the decision to allow the event to take place."

Jews, Arabs against parade

Meanwhile, earlier in the week leading American Rabbi Yehuda Levin organized a Jerusalem conference attended by both Jewish and Arab religious leaders who expressed their staunch objection to holding the Gay Pride Parade in the capital.

Among the participants were Arab-Israeli sheik and MK Ibrahim Sarsur, Tekoa Rabbi Menachem Froman and Arab MK Abas Zkoor.

The two leading Palestinian religious leaders, Sheikh Taysir al-Tamimi and Sheikh Hamad Bitawi, were denied entry to Israel but phoned in their objection to holding the event in Jerusalem.

During the conference Sarsur said “if they (gays) will dare to approach the Temple Mount during the parade – they will do so over our dead bodies,” adding that “the Gay Pride Parade is an attack on Jerusalem that aims to damage the Islamic identity of young Arabs in the city.”

[Note: Last comment snipped.]

(06.27.06, 23:52)

[Note: I have omitted the last statement from the article here at my blog because it was defamatory, untrue and hateful towards our Jewish friends. I will not have such statements quoted here at my blog.]

My friend Stephen Bennett is a Christian evangelist whose primary focus is reaching the homosexual for Jesus Christ. He is currently arranging an international missions trip and will send an entire team of evangelists - including former homosexual men and women - to Jerusalem for the entire week to evangelize the homosexuals gathered there with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to minister to the multitudes of people who will probably join them in support of this "pride" event.

Stephen's recent newsletter shared the following:

Never before in modern day history has such an event in Israel ever taken place. On August 6, 2006, over a quarter of a million homosexuals from all around the world are expected to descend upon the Holy City - Jerusalem, Israel for "Gay" WorldPride 2006. Jerusalem is being targeted because the world's three major religions are there: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. From Jerusalem, homosexuals will demand the entire world - and GOD HIMSELF -once and for all accept and embrace the sin of homosexuality.

As homosexuals from around the world paln on descending upon the Holy City, visitors are already being warned of the dangers of traveling to Israel during this time. Yet if you are familiar with SBM, this is our calling and mission field: to reach the homosexual with the life changing, soul saving Gospel of Jesus Christ.

All of SBM Evangelists will be blogging DAILY from Jerusalem, with photos, streaming audio and video. You can also join the SBM Evangelists in prayer DAILY - LIVE FROM JERUSALEM via SBM's website and live video cam. SBM will also be reporting for several major, international worldwide news organizations.

This will be one of the most important outreaches that SBM has ever embarked on. Please help this ministry effort by sending your best possible tax-deductible gift to:

SBM Project: World Pride, Jerusalem, Israel 2006 TODAY!
Call toll free at 1-800-832-3623 or give securely online at SBMinistries

For daily, up-to-the-minute information on SBM's Jerusalem 2006 Outreach, please visit
My Christian friends, we need to keep this outreach trip, the evangelists and all involved who will be helping in this ministry effort in Jerusalem, Israel bathed in constant and fervent prayer! Please consider giving financial support as well. They cannot make this trip without faithful Christian friends and partners who are willing to give towards one of the most important evangelistic outreaches ever to the homosexual!

God bless,


P.S. I've been singing a particular song (to myself cause I don't sing well!! haha) for several days now. The song lyrics made me think about the "sea of faces" of homosexual men and women who don't know Jesus Christ who will be descending upon Jerusalem in August.

Sea of Faces by Kutless

I see the city lights all around me
Everyone's obscure
Ten million people each with their problems
Why should anyone care

And in Your eyes I can see
I am not just a man, vastly lost in this world
Lost in a Sea of Faces
Your body's the bread, Your blood is the wine
Because you traded Your life for mine

Sometimes my life it feels so trivial
Immersed in the greatness of space
Yet somehow you still find the time for me
It's then You show me Your love

And In Your eyes I can see
And in Your arms I will be
I am not just a man, vastly lost in this world
Lost in a Sea of Faces
Your body's the bread, Your blood is the wine
Because you traded Your life for mine

If only my one heart
Was all you'd gain from all it cost
Well I know you would have still been a man
With a reason
To willingly offer your life

I am not just a man, vastly lost in this world
Lost in a Sea of Faces
Your body's the bread, Your blood is the wine
Because you traded Your life for mine

Just one in a million faces

Monday, June 26, 2006

Needed: Christians For Cultural Engagement

Months ago, I posted a question to my blog readers. I wondered whether or not I should keep just one blog or divide my time between discussing the Gospel of Christ and the Bible in a separate blog, while discussing the culture and politics of the day in another blog. For several reasons, I decided that it would be best to maintain just one blog. Others have been successful at keeping several blogs going, but for me, one blog was certainly enough to keep me busy.

At the GodBlog Conference of 2005 which was held at Biola University, the important question of whether or not evangelical Christians should be involved in and/or engaged in politics or just be salt and light in this dark world came up and was debated extensively. Many Godbloggers were steadfast in their choices. Some just knew that they were "meant to share the Gospel and biblical principles alone" without getting into tiresome political debates. Others were convinced that it was their calling to draw attention to the political battles that are currently raging in our culture. It is certainly an interesting and valid question. Several prominent Christian leaders (and blog panelists) had different opinions on it and backed their views up with Bible verses.

1 Corinthians 12:18-31 (NKJV) -

18 But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. 19 And if they were all one member, where would the body be?

20 But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22 No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. 23 And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, 24 but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, 25 that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the *best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

Yes. The body of Christ contains many different members with different gifts. One person may be better at teaching children. Another, better at writing poetry or songs that honor the Lord. We all have certain gifts that maybe others don't have. Some, genuinely may believe that they shouldn't be involved in volatile political debates.

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that evangelical Christians MUST BE ENGAGED IN THIS BATTLE FOR MORAL PURPOSES. Whether their contribution in such an effort means actually working in the political field or just assisting (and/or financial support) in the efforts of certain organizations (e.g. Concerned Women for America; Alliance Defense name two) that promote Christian morals, values and ethics; it has always been my opinion that we must not let the secular humanistic crowd overtake what we hold dear as American Christians who love God, Jesus Christ, and His Word, the Bible.

I read the following article early this morning and thought that it spoke directly to my thoughts, concerns, and beliefs of why I think that evangelical Christians must become motivated and involved in combating the moral decay that is currently raging in our culture.

Albert Mohler shares many good talking points throughout the piece, but the ones that are especially important desperately need more Christians who are willing to not only read and pay attention to the details, but are also willing to act upon them. Mohler sums it up quite well at the end of his article:

We are concerned for the culture not because we believe that the culture is ultimate, but because we know that our neighbors must hear the gospel, even as we hope and strive for their good, peace, security, and well-being.

This is no time for silence, and no time for shirking our responsibilities as Christian citizens. Ominous signs of moral collapse and cultural decay now appear on our contemporary horizon. A society ready to put the institution of marriage up for demolition and transformation is a society losing its most basic moral sense. A culture ready to treat human embryos as material for medical experimentation is a society turning its back on human dignity and the sacredness of human life.

Trouble in the City of Man is a call to action for citizens of the City of God, and that call to action must involve political involvement as well. Christians may well be the last citizens who know the difference between the eternal and the temporal, the ultimate and the urgent. God's truth is eternal and Christian convictions must be commitments of permanence. Political alliances and arrangements are, by definition, temporary and conditional. This is no time for America's Christians to confuse the City of Man with the City of God. At the same time, we can never be counted faithful in the City of God if we neglect our duty in the City of Man. That's a good principle to remember as America gears up for a crucial political debate. (bold mine)

No matter what you think your particular calling in this life is, as a born-again, Bible believing Christian it is also your duty to at least do something to help turn the tide of moral decay. This needs to be a top priority not only for ourselves and the 'here and now,' but even more importantly, for the sakes of our children and grandchildren and their future lives on this earth.



Mohler article:

Engaging the City of Man: Christian Faith and Politics

by Albert Mohler
June 15, 2006

Over the last 20 years, evangelical Christians have been politically mobilized in an outpouring of moral concern and political engagement unprecedented since the crusade against slavery in the 19th century. Is this a good development? With at least one Supreme Court nomination now on the horizon, the issue of political involvement emerges anew with urgency.

To what extent should Christians be involved in the political process?

This question has troubled the Christian conscience for centuries. The emergence of the modern evangelical movement in the post World War II era brought a renewed concern for engagement with the culture and the political process. The late Carl F. H. Henry addressed evangelicals with a manifesto for Christian engagement in his landmark book The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. As Dr. Henry eloquently argued, disengagement from the critical issues of the day is not an option.

An evangelical theology for political participation must be grounded in the larger context of cultural engagement. As the Christian worldview makes clear, our ultimate concern must be the glory of God. Building from that, we understand that when we are instructed by Scripture to love God and then to love our neighbor as ourselves, we are given a clear mandate for the right kind of cultural engagement.

We love our neighbor because we first love God. In His sovereignty, our Creator has put us within this cultural context in order that we may display His glory by preaching the gospel, confronting persons with God's truth, and serving as agents of salt and light in a dark and fallen world. In other words, love of God leads us to love our neighbor--and love of neighbor requires our participation in the culture and in the political process.

Writing even as the Romans Empire fell, Augustine, the great bishop and theologian of the early church, made this case in his monumental work, The City of God. As Augustine explained, humanity is confronted by two cities--the City of God and the City of Man. The City of God is eternal, and takes as its sole concern the greater glory of God. In the City of God, all things are ruled by God's Word, and the perfect rule of God is the passion of all its citizens.

In the City of Man, however, the reality is very different. This city is filled with mixed passions, mixed allegiances, and compromised principles. Though the City of God is marked by unconditional obedience to the command of God, citizens of the City of Man demonstrate deadly patterns of disobedience, even as they celebrate and claim their moral autonomy, and then revolt against the Creator.

Of course, we know that the City of God is eternal, even as the City of Man is passing. But this does not mean that the City of Man is ultimately unimportant, and it does not allow the church to forfeit its responsibility to love its citizens. Love of neighbor--grounded in our love for God--requires us to work for good in the City of Man, even as we set as our first priority the preaching of the gospel--the only means of bringing citizens of the City of Man into citizenship in the City of God.

Thus, Christians bear important responsibilities in both cities. Even as we know that our ultimate citizenship is in heaven, and even as we set our sights on the glory of the City of God, we must work for good, justice, and righteousness in the City of Man. We do so, not merely because we are commanded to love its citizens, but because we know that they are loved by the very God we serve.

From generation to generation, Christians often swing between two extremes, either ignoring the City of Man or considering it to be our main concern. A biblical balance establishes the fact that the City of Man is indeed passing, and chastens us from believing that the City of Man and its realities can ever be of ultimate importance. Yet, we also know that each of us is, by God's own design, a citizen--though temporarily--of the City of Man. When Jesus instructed that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, He pointed His followers to the City of Man and gave us a clear assignment. The only alternatives that remain are obedience and disobedience to this call.

Love of neighbor for the sake of loving God is a profound political philosophy that strikes a balance between the disobedience of political disengagement and the idolatry of politics as our main priority. As evangelical Christians, we must engage in political action, not because we believe the conceit that politics is ultimate, but because we must obey our Redeemer when He commanded that we must love our neighbor.

We are concerned for the culture not because we believe that the culture is ultimate, but because we know that our neighbors must hear the gospel, even as we hope and strive for their good, peace, security, and well-being.

The Kingdom of God is never up for a vote in any election, and there are no polling places in the City of God. Nevertheless, it is by God's sovereignty that we are now confronted with these times, our current crucial issues of debate, and the decisions that are made in the political process.

This is no time for silence, and no time for shirking our responsibilities as Christian citizens. Ominous signs of moral collapse and cultural decay now appear on our contemporary horizon. A society ready to put the institution of marriage up for demolition and transformation is a society losing its most basic moral sense. A culture ready to treat human embryos as material for medical experimentation is a society turning its back on human dignity and the sacredness of human life.

Trouble in the City of Man is a call to action for citizens of the City of God, and that call to action must involve political involvement as well. Christians may well be the last citizens who know the difference between the eternal and the temporal, the ultimate and the urgent. God's truth is eternal and Christian convictions must be commitments of permanence. Political alliances and arrangements are, by definition, temporary and conditional. This is no time for America's Christians to confuse the City of Man with the City of God. At the same time, we can never be counted faithful in the City of God if we neglect our duty in the City of Man. That's a good principle to remember as America gears up for a crucial political debate.

Click here to contact Dr. Mohler, or visit his website at


Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., serves as the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary - the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.

Widely sought as a columnist and commentator, Dr. Mohler has been quoted in the nation's leading newspapers, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Atlanta Journal/Constitution and The Dallas Morning News. He has also appeared on such national news programs as CNN's "Larry King Live," NBC's "Today Show" and "Dateline NBC," ABC's "Good Morning America," "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" on PBS, MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" and Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor."

© Copyright 2006 Business Reform. "All Rights Reserved." Reproduction of any portion of the Business Reform magazine is limited to bulletins/newsletters published by local churches, businesses, or individuals at no-cost distribution. All other uses require written permission from The Business Reform Foundation, unless noted otherwise (some authors hold copyrights on certain articles, in which event written permission to reprint should be directed to their attention). Each copy must include the following statement: "Reprinted with permission from the Business Reform magazine, a bimonthly magazine published by The Business Reform Foundation (, Ashland, Ohio." Articles must be reprinted in their entirety, without changes or other editing, and the author should be given an appropriate byline. Please direct permission requests to one of the addresses below.

For more information, contact us by mail: Business Reform, 400 Orange St., Ashland, Ohio 44805; phone: 1-866-6Reform (1-866-673-3676); or email: We sincerely appreciate any comments and critiques, as we try to effectively transform our business culture. We are also thankful for your support and encourage you to reform our business culture.

Saturday, June 24, 2006

What ACLU Actions Admit About Christ

I have been planning on doing a post about the valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, who wanted to share that her faith in Jesus Christ has been paramount in her life and achievements in school, but her microphone was cut off by school officials before she could say the name of Jesus Christ in her speech. Today, I found an excellent analysis with additional links written by Terrence over at Go Pundit Go.

One of the best points made by Go Pundit was this:

The Constitution does not prohibit citizens from expressing their faith, though. That’s a crucial distinction that ACLU types fail to acknowledge.

Isn’t it ironic that the people who WANTED TO HEAR THE ENTIRE SPEECH jeered when the microphone was cut off, but the ACLU who is supposedly FOR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS applauded the school official's decision?

What hypocrisy! The


group is so transparently biased towards the radical left-wing nutjob progressive mindset that the only reason they can come up with to turn a teenaged girl’s mic off during her graduation speech is because they are afraid of proselytizing?

If the girl wanted to thank “Buddha” or “Muhammad” or a sun god, do you think the ACLU would have stepped in to prevent it? The thing is, there is no spiritual power in those other “gods” or “prophets!”

It’s OK with the ACLU to use the name of Jesus Christ as long as a person is swearing in public or in a movie.

Did you ever wonder why people don’t use the name of Buddha or Muhammed; especially as a curse word? We don’t hear people saying, “Oh Buddha!” or “Muhammed damn it.” Again, because Jesus is the One True God and there is power in the name of Jesus Christ! What’s more, the people who don’t even want to acknowledge Him for Who He is admit it anyway through all their negative reactions to His Holy Name.


Add-on to post:

I received an email about a new book which discusses, "What Would Jesus Say To Hypocrites?"

Sounds like a book I should read!

Here's a bit of info about the book:

In a groundbreaking new book, author and renowned critic Jeremy Lott examines how hypocrisy is used against religious leaders and believers of all stripes.He finds that allegations of hypocrisy are used to silence the devout and diminish what they have to say.

Lott also sheds light on several important issues of faith and hypocrisy. Did you know:

• That one of the first people to use 'hypocrisy' as a term of moral judgment was a certain rabbi from Nazareth?

• That Jesus's approach to hypocrisy was very different from today's anti-hypocrites?

• That even as he was arguing against the teachers of the law, Jesus told the crowds to listento what these hypocrites had to say,and to follow their basically sound advice?

In In Defense of Hypocrisy: Picking Sides in the War on Virtue, Lott argues against a "saint or shut up" approach to morality.He shows how hypocrisy helps to point us in the right direction even if we're not fully ready to go there.

He also shows how today's opponents of hypocrisy are opposed not only to hypocrisy but to moral judgment.Jesus said "go forth and sin no more." Today's anti-hypocritical refrain is "shut up already."

Order In Defense of Hypocrisy through today for under $15 or look for it at better bookstores everywhere.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Analysis (Part 3)

In this portion, I am going to share some excellent points that Father Michael Manning and Reverend Albert Mohler stated on the show. Both attempted to show real compassion, but the bottom line remains. Either homosexual behavior is abberant and sinful, or it isn't. There is much evidence that it should not have been removed from the diagnostic manual as a disorder. The article below from NARTH tells us exactly how Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy came about. It is a very telling article that shows without a doubt that social and political forces, rather than true science, was the reason that many organizations were pressured into such a move.

I will be back on Friday with more Biblically based analysis. I especially want to elaborate upon Andrew Sullivan's unbiblical comment, "And I want you to have a loving relationship and I feel that my own relationship is a gift from God. I cannot alone in my conscience before God believe otherwise." In one previous analysis post, Mark had an excellent comment about Gene Robinson's similar remark:

'Bishop' Robinson says "God made me this way and declared me good. And that's, that's something that I have laid claim to."

Robinson saying that really sums up the error of his thinking.
Consider Rom 3:12
'All have turned away from God;
all have gone wrong.
No one does good,
not even one'.

Not one of us is good, he should know that!

Romans 7:18 'For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not'.

The more holy we become, the faster we see the sin that still remains in us. Robinson has willfully set aside the spirit (God's Holy Word) and welcomed his flesh. And now he leads a church into the darkness. Very sad.



KING: Father Manning, the Catholic Church is pretty adamant against it, is it not?

FATHER MICHAEL MANNING, CATHOLIC PRIEST: Against -- well, the important thing I think is saying that there is a real sense of love and care for a person that is a homosexual or a lesbian. Deep care, God loves them, God cares for them.

KING: Could they be a priest?

MANNING: They could be a priest, but the thing has to be, and the other - the canon mentioned that, that you would have to reframe from sex. That's kind of the difference that you find.

KING: So you can say you're a homosexual or a gay, be a priest --

MANNING: There is a stronger push right now, the church, the Vatican is coming out with some real negative statements about anyone in the seminary process that's that way, but it's that kind of difference. There is the respect that we give to a person that is moving in that direction, but at the same time, saying, wait, that's not what God made us for.

KING: Andrew Sullivan, what do you make of all of this? You're a Catholic.

ANDREW SULLIVAN, TIME COLUMNIST: I am a Catholic and people often ask me, how can you be openly gay and be a Catholic? And my response is always I'm openly gay, because I'm a Catholic, because God taught me not to bear false witness to who I am and my faith is something that I really have no choice over. I've tried. I've had a terrible struggle with my own faith, but God wouldn't let me go and he keeps bringing me back and he keeps saying to me, in the Eucharist and in the church I love you and you belong here. And I want you to have a loving relationship and I feel that my own relationship is a gift from God. I cannot alone in my conscience before God believe otherwise. So I can do no other. I'm here because I have no choice.

KING: Reverend Mohler, why has the Southern Baptist, and you've been with us before, why does someone being gay bother you? In other words, what does it matter what someone's sexual preference might be when they are good people?

REV. ALBERT MOHLER, PRES, SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: Well, the first thing should never be what really bothers me but whether or not as Christians, God has set a standard to which we are obligated. The issue is, always has been and always will be, the authority of scripture. The scripture very clearly tells us that our creator has a purpose for our sexuality and that homosexuality among other sins is a violation of that purpose and so love compels us to tell people the truth and also, as we understand the depth of their struggle with this, to tell them that there is a way out. I'm very thankful that Andrew Sullivan feels that pull. I believe that's a pull towards repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and I pray to see that continue all the way until he finds what I believe his purpose to be as God intended.

KING: Reverend Mohler, how could something be a sin if you didn't choose it?

MOHLER: Well, actually, that's just something I can't accept in the sense of choosing. Larry I have to say, first of all, we're choosing all the time. Even in the moments we spend together here, we're making moral choices. I do understand that there are some choices that we make that seem to be prior to anything we can even understand and I understand there are many homosexuals who say I don't even have any impression of having chosen this erotic interest, this sexual orientation. I accept that at face value, but that does not mean that it normalizes and makes acceptable homosexual acts. I want to help them through that struggle regardless of how it came into their lives.

Thought Reform AndThe Psychology ofHomosexual Advocacy

Charles W. Socarides, M.D.

Source: Collected Papers from the NARTH Annual Conference, Saturday, 29 July 1995.

Charles W. Socarides, M.D. is a Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. He is past president of NARTH. In 1995, he published Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (Adam Margrave Books).

I thought it would be a good idea today to begin with some brief comments on the eventful year of progress which has happened to our organization. From a small group of only three people--Dr. Benjamin Kaufman, Dr. Joe Nicolosi, and myself--in March 1992 an organization was born with a spirit to light its way. We have now become an organization of over five hundred members, representing the best of psychoanalysis, psychiatry, psychology, and social work.

The activities of our organization have been well reported in the NARTH Bulletin over the last two years, and I feel I can report that we are growing healthier and stronger every day, and that the Bulletin is thriving under the guidance of Linda Nicolosi who has done so much for us, especially in the last year, as editor along with Dr. Nicolosi. These are perilous times we have passed through, and the incidents and events that we have successfully overcome have all been documented in the NARTH Bulletin in quite a lot of detail. All the struggles with gay movement within The American Psychoanalytic Association, the notable battle with the Gay Caucus in the American Psychiatric Association (1994), which had so willfully and dishonestly attempted to declare us unethical for treating homosexuals, have all but ended (it should be noted that a similar effort is being launched by activists within the American Psychological Association as we go to press). In large measure this was a victory for NARTH for it is our strong belief that our humanitarian treatment of homosexual patients who desire to be rid of the yoke of homosexuality should not only be allowed but applauded. It is, as well, against all humanistic concepts embodied in our profession, as well as against the first-amendment rights of any individual seeking help, and the first-amendment rights of any therapist to attempt to outlaw or discriminate against such treatment. Our position was strengthened by an earlier Resolution of the Social Issues Committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association (May 1993) to the effect that treatment must not be interfered with. The attempt to stop treatment for homosexuality in the American Psychiatric Association--a proposal by gay activists--was defeated at the May 1994 Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. I trust you are all aware of these events and give much credit to our organization for its leadership in these matters.

In my 1994 report I noted that a revolutionary change in sexual mores and customs had been ushered in by that singular act of considerable consequence--the removal of homosexuality from the category of aberrancy by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973. It was a fateful consequence of, and disregard of established psychoanalytic and psychological knowledge of human sexual behavior. At that time I presented an account of the social and political forces within and without the American Psychiatric Association responsible for this act, and critically examined the spurious and pseudoscientific reasons put forth for the removal of a diagnosis from the diagnostic and statistical manual. This removal amounted to a full approval of homosexuality and an encouragement to aberrancy by those who should have known better, both in a scientific sense, and in the sense of the social consequences of such removal. Those who wished to retain homosexuality as a valid diagnosis had been essentially silenced at meetings, lectures, and publications--a silencing that originates both from within our organizations and from other sources. Political parties and religious leaders have been utilized to reinforce this silence. The press was thoroughly influenced; the electronic media, television, and movies began to promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and censored all information that might show homosexuality as a disorder. Movies have been routinely censored by a gay Hollywood review board for the last 7 to 8 years; other films critical of homosexuality have been boycotted at the box-office; books which portray homosexuality in any unfavorable way have not been published, and many books have been removed from library shelves in universities and public libraries. Of over 500 titles found in a major bookstore in New York City, only 2 or 3 were found to be at all critical of homosexuality or the homosexual movement. Homosexual sex education entered our schools and colleges, and pro-gay activists--homosexual and otherwise--portrayed their way of life as normal and as "American as apple pie," intimidating others with different views. In essence, this movement has accomplished what every other society, with rare exceptions, would have trembled to tamper with: a revision of the basic code and concept of life that men and women normally mate with those of the opposite sex and not with each other.

This psychiatric nonsense and social recklessness has brought with it many individual tragedies which you've all heard in your consultation rooms. Men and women who no longer care for their appropriate gender roles have created confusion in the very young for generations to come. Homosexuals in therapy have tended to develop tremendous resistances. Medical specialists such as pediatricians are terribly confused. For example, one of our pediatric journals, influenced by gay activism, has recently announced (Spring 1995) that parents should not be encouraged to seek therapy for children with gender-defined self disorders, which are actually the nuclear problem in obligatory homosexuality! Thus the removal of homosexuality from the DSM--a political not a scientific decision--was simply the opening phase of a war with normality. It was part of a two-phase sexual radicalization, the second phase being the raising of homosexuality to the level of alternative lifestyle. This removal of a diagnosis was a Trojan Horse which, once admitted into the gates of the heterosexual world, has led to a sexual and social dementia.

Today I would like to address the question of how this has happened before the very eyes of psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers--and the public--most of whom, it would seem, have not apprehended the full meaning of what they have been subjected to. Surely it says much as to the status of objective clinical judgment when even experienced clinicians are not aware of what they have been exposed to.

While preparing for my talk I was asked by a learned colleague what the subject would be. I said that I was of two minds: to talk about clinical material representing advances in treatment, or to speak about how it all happened--the programming of America and the acceptance of the homosexual advocacy. What was her choice? She replied energetically, "Of course you must speak about what has happened to the nation because my kids go to Horace Mann High school in New York City and they're told now that they must come to Assembly for two days in a row to talk about how 'normal' homosexuality is, and how 'indecent,' and how 'undemocratic,' and 'homophobic' it is to have any negative views of such physiological and sexual functioning." She said, "I simply don't know what to do. I never raised my kids to be homosexual."

I shall therefore speak of how it has come about that we currently suffer, and how many stand mute, under the threat of being called "undemocratic" or "prejudiced" if we do not accept certain assumptions thrust upon us, as if deprived of all intellectual capacity to judge and reason.
Two further incidents are a spur to my resolve to comment, as time will permit, on some of the psychological mechanisms employed in the reprogramming of America. I propose to tell you how it is that a young woman returning from a college in Maine, influenced by the gay propaganda, college-funded gay groups, and those in her community--which was about to vote on pro-gay measures in support of the approval of the homosexual agenda--a nonhomosexual young woman with a background of culture and classical learning--makes the startling announcement during a discussion of the issue with her parents: "But Dad and Mom--We are on the high moral ground, and you are not!"

A third incident which epitomizes our situation is a story that ran in the New York Post a few days ago: "The Case of Rubin Diaz," which I feel illustrates homosexual totalitarianism in action. On Wednesday, July 19, 1995 New York was witness to an attack of "shaming" by gay activism in the city council of New York City. Reverend Rubin Diaz was not renewed in his role as panelist-member to the Civilian Complaint Review Board to the Police Department of New York City. Diaz had apparently infuriated gays by suggesting that the 1994 Gay Games here would spread AIDS, and for that was roundly abused by gay activists. His name was to have been submitted to council vote for re-appointment. Diaz, an outspoken critic of last summer's Gay Games 1994 in New York, saw his name suddenly withdrawn and laid over for consideration at a later date--a parliamentary maneuver that shielded the minister from a vote. It was said by one of his closest supporters that he didn't have enough votes for re-appointment.

This tactic will permit Diaz to continue on the board, but there is no escaping the terrible reality that if his name had been submitted (according to Ray Kerrison, a columnist for the New York Post) the council would have voted him out because he preached and upheld the biblical strictures against homosexuality. Diaz headed the Bronx Hispanic Clergy Organization and served thousands of poor, elderly, and ailing in the city of New York. He himself conceded that the pressure of this ordeal was just becoming too great: "People have been mean." he said, "They're lying about me, trying to ruin me; it never ends. No matter what I do or say, they will never be satisfied. That's why I would like it to be all over." So finally even Mr. Diaz is breaking down.

A reporter asked Diaz why he did not apologize for asserting that the Gay Games would spread AIDS in New York (which they would) and "teach young adults that homosexuality is okay." Here was his opportunity.

He said, "America was founded on biblical principles and I cannot deny them. Does that make me a racist, or a hate-monger, or homophobic? No, the bible teaches me to love everyone, to be fair and just. If I hated anyone, it would disqualify me from Heaven. If I hate gays, I'm spiritually dead."

Diaz believes homosexuality is morally wrong--a belief propounded in the Old and New Testaments and upheld by many of the population. For that, a council majority was ready to run him off the Complaint Review Board. The campaign against him has been orchestrated by Tom Duane, the openly gay democratic council member. Duane had part of the chamber stacked yesterday with a radical gay clique yelling, "Shame, shame, shame!"

Pointing to Duane's noisy crowd, another council member said, "They're nothing more than purveyors of self-righteousness. They go around desecrating the cathedral, reviling the host, and attacking the Cardinal, and claim that it is moral. But they cannot respect a difference of opinion from anybody else."

Diaz finally said, "If the council votes on my record, I'll be reappointed; if it votes on my religion, I will not be reappointed."

This is a "foul day's work" according to Ray Kerrison. But it is more than that, Mr. Kerrison; these gay activists are not voting against Mr. Diaz's religion; religion stands in the way--and in backing our position on this issue, religion becomes a stalwart friend of science, morality, and a healthy sexual life. But the main thrust is not against religion but against our scientific findings. His religious beliefs are used against Mr. Diaz in order to induce him to conform to the ideology of the homosexual movement. This is an example of the shaming and the thought reform which has swept the country. It is one of the techniques of thought reform that has been widely applied and tremendously successful. It's purpose is to coerce, intimidate, and promote pain and suffering in those who oppose the views of those who have assumed authority over the personal lives of our nation.

In reviewing these events, my wife, who has an unerring aptitude for getting to the heart of the matter, casually mentioned, "You know, it seems to me that what's happened to everybody is that they have been brainwashed." Now "brainwashing" is a common term that's been used and abused in many ways. It can mean anything from a secretary being "brainwashed" by a boss to work late hours without pay, to the influence exerted by a cult-leader, to the brainwashing of U.N. soldiers brought from South Korea to North Korea asprisoners in 1953-4. Is this too strong and dramatic a term to apply to the homosexual movement in America? It is not the physical torture of forced isolation or other physiological techniques, but if one looks carefully at what has happened to the nation, one comes up with the alarming conclusion that, indeed, a form of national "brainwashing" has been employed by the propagandists of the homosexual movement.
The original work on thought control was done by Robert J. Lifton, an intrepid American army psychiatrist in 1961, later on the faculty of Yale, who described the communist takeover of China, how it led to a dramatic change in the beliefs of a population, with severe mental and physical punishment meted out to anyone who held a different point of view. The techniques used to radically change the intellectual and emotional climate of the Chinese people bears, in my opinion, an amazing similarity to the "brainwashing" of a nation as regards homosexuality (see Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China by Robert J. Lifton, M.D., W.W. Norton and Company, 1961). The techniques of thought reform and persuasion described by him appear to have been successfully adapted in this country by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in a book entitled After the Ball: How America Will conquer its Fear and hatred of Gays in the 1990s (published by Plume Press, Penguin Group, 1989). Lifton's work itself, quite understandably, is not cited by the authors. The closest they came to such an acknowledgement is their comment: "...the principles are known, and the methods work." Marshall Kirk is a researcher in neuropsychiatry of enormous intelligence who works almost exclusively with aptitude tests for adults with IQs of over 200. Hunter Madsen received his doctorate in politics from Harvard, and is an expert in public persuasion tactics and social marketing. He designs commercial advertising for Madison Avenue and has served as consultant to gay media campaigns across the country. Together they became a formidable pair as advocates for "gay rights" and the upsetting the heterosexual applecart".

Beginning in 1989, After the Ball became the guiding manifesto for a new brand of pragmatic gay activism across the nation. According to its authors, who laid it all out, it outlined a bold plan for conquering what was termed "bigotry" by exploiting the mass media. At no loss for candor, Kirk and Madsen assert the issue would be "MONEY" for the dissemination of our propaganda. "Success depends as always our flooding the media." (p. 157) It laid the groundwork for the new gay revolution, and has been responsible for the reprogramming--the thought reform--of America itself on the issue of homosexuality. Kirk and Madsen insisted that earlier attempts to increase public acceptance of homosexuality had all but failed, and that they would continue to fail without the implementation of: (1) complete control of the media; (2) a "desensitization" of the public as regards homosexuality; and (3) a polarization of thought through the promotion of an emotional dissonance in every thinking individual. The basic features of thought reform and the psychological currents upon which it depends are as follows: (1) The control of all human communication on the subject; (2) An extensive personal manipulation of the public. (3) "Jamming" (a technique to promote emotional dissonance involving insertion into the heterosexual individual of a incompatible emotional response as regards homosexuality). To quote After the Ball:

Jamming (heterosexuals) is more active and aggressive than desensitization: by the same token it is also more enjoyable and heartening (to homosexuals). Jamming makes use of the rule of associative conditioning (according to the authors)--the psychological process whereby when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed--one's feelings about one are transferred to the other. An incompatible emotional response is directed to make people feel shame when they perceive that they are not feeling, thinking, or acting like one of the pack [the homosexual pack]. The trick is to get the average heterosexual into the position of feeling a twinge of shame so that, via repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements, any thinking or expression as regards the abnormality of homosexuality--will come to be incompatible with his inner image as a well-liked person--one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are "not Christian" and the propaganda can further show them as being criticized, hated, and shunned (Kirk and Madsen, p. 150-153).

And further:

..."Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof...through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the slightest frisson of doubt and shame into the previously held unalloyed beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality" (Kirk and Madsen, p, 152-153).

It should be noted that an unplanned emotional dissonance was tragically introduced by the unfortunate and catastrophic reality of AIDS reaching epidemic proportions in the homosexual community. Throughout the nation, homosexuals were thus legitimately viewed as needy individuals to whom all of us are merciful and compassionate, while at the same time a disturbance was produced in the nation's psyche as regards to the disapproval of homosexuality itself.

(4) Conversion: By conversion is meant a planned psychological attack in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media, "making Americans hold us in warm regard, whether they like it or not." (Kirk and Madsen, p. 154).

In conversion the heterosexual is repeatedly exposed to literal pictures/labeled pairs of homosexual people who look like classic heterosexuals. The image must be that of an icon of normality. The ads will have their effect on them whether they believe them or not. The heterosexual will feel two incompatible emotions--a good response to the picture, and a bad response to the label (homosexual)...At worst the two will have canceled one another and we will have successfully jammed; at best associative conditioning will, to however small extent, transfer the positive emotion associated with the picture to the label. ...In conversion, the target is shown his own crowd associating with gays in good fellowship with total approval of their homosexuality (Kirk and Madsen p. 154-155).

Let us first address the "control of human communication" effected by the homosexual movement. For this purpose I shall borrow freely from Dr. Lifton's observations and point out what is strikingly similar in the propaganda of both movements: communistic totalism and homosexual totalism. The gay movement has established almost complete domain not only over the individual communication with the outside world--that is, all one sees and hears, reads and writes, experiences and expresses on the subject of homosexuality (a censorship of which you all are aware)--but it has also penetrated one's inner life, that is, one's communications with oneself. As Lifton suggested, such an atmosphere is uncomfortably reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984. This type of communication has the assumption of an air of omniscience, a conviction that reality is the exclusive possession of the gay movement, for these gay social planners consider it their duty to create an environment containing no more and no less than the "truth" as they see it. The average individual is thus deprived, as Lifton puts it, "of the combination of external information and inner reflection" which anyone requires to test the realities of the environment and to maintain a measure of identity separate from it. Look at the fact that the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations can be so blind to the facts of life, to the scientific evidence of over a hundred years supplied by psychoanalytic research, to the fact that children, boys and girls, differ anatomically and psychologically and are designed anatomically and psychologically for complementariness, and to the erosion of family structure, family cohesion so implicit in the total approval of homosexuality. In such an environment one undergoes a "personal closure" which frees one from the incessant struggle with the elusive subtleties of truth and, therefore, in a sense, one is programmed. No one dares speak out. If an individual's intellect and honesty make him resist, he feels estranged. Just look at Mr. Diaz; it took a lot to estrange him but he apparently is breaking down.

Another feature of thought control is "extensive personal manipulation. This psychological technique, according to Kirk and Madsen, seeks to provoke specific patterns of behavior and emotion in such a way that they will appear to have arisen spontaneously from within the environment. This is what has happened gradually with the acceptance of homosexuality as normal by a large segment of the public. It seems spontaneous; it seems as if it's directly perceived as being some law of social development, or of being in the vanguard of a mission, a new way thinking and development. The average individual is made to feel: "Gayness is truth; gayness is the absence of prejudice; gayness is the absence of discrimination; gayness is the will of the people--because all people wish to be free--gay is free, gay is freedom.

Except that gayness, in my opinion and in yours, is a "freedom to far," (explored in my book, A Freedom Too Far, 1995, Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix, AZ) a fictive freedom, a freedom that does not really exist, for it is a freedom that flies in the face of the reality of the male/female design, in the face of evolution itself--it is a freedom that cannot be given. If one questions the correctness of the gay view, however, this questioning is considered to be stimulated by lower purposes--to be backward, selfish, and petty. The average individual feels unable to escape. And that's why important and ordinary people--everyone from the mayor of a large city to baseball players, priests, the average housewife, and so forth--can join the march on Gay Pride Day and chant the call of the homosexual agenda on television as representing democracy, nondiscrimination, and liberation. It is why the young woman returns from Maine and announces with absolute conviction: "But we are on the high moral ground." It explains how school-board members in Cloverdale, CA can vote with an easy conscience to include homosexual sex education in school curriculums on a par with that of heterosexuality with the rationalization that they are simply showing "compassion."

Another feature of thought reform is to divide us into the "pure" and the "impure'--into the absolutely good and the absolutely evil. The good and pure, of course, are those who swallow the homosexual ideology. Relegated to the "bad and impure" are the protestations of "dissident' heterosexuals. The institution of heterosexuality is to be made impure, and this existing state of impurity is to be dramatized by public displays of outrage, designed by homosexual activists, against public figures, speakers, writers, or psychiatric clinicians with opposing views. Mr. Diaz is made "impure" and "bad" when he has to endure indictment, conviction, and is attacked with epithets of "Shame, shame, shame!" when he dares to say, "I do not believe that homosexual behavior is normal, and I believe in the fact that introducing thousands of gay athletes into the city of New York will increase the number of AIDS cases"--which it would. Such a turning about--a turning of the world upside-down--is what is happening.

When an individual fails to meet the prevailing standards of casting out these "impurities within himself," he is expected to feel humiliation and ostracism, and ultimately he may recant in order to regain his "lost pride." This is undoubtedly what has happened to large segments of the nation as a whole who have been taken in by this psychological totalism of the gay agenda, and who have lost the capacity for discernment, objectivity, and truth.

I have explained to you at least some of the intricate techniques of psychological mindbending, as first reported by Robert J. Lifton, in order to inform and protect individuals and nations from the insidious and terrifying effect of thought-reform. I furthermore believe that such techniques were effectively and convincingly utilized by the gay movement in order to convert legislators, behavioral scientists, religious leaders, and the public at large to the belief that homosexuality should not only be tolerated but encouraged, thereby, raising it to the level of a normal psychosexual institution to be wholeheartedly embraced in the name of nondiscrimination.

After the Ball is chilling indeed: chilling in its diabolism, chilling in its hatred of straight America, chilling in its advocacy of lack of conscience, chilling in its brutal and naked lust not for sex but for power.

There are notable politicians as well as private individuals--leading democrats and republicans alike--who would accommodate the gay movement for the 1996 presidential election, thinking that a line need not be drawn, failing to perceive that this is a war for the minds, hearts, and souls of our youth. When we appease the homosexual agenda we appease not them but ourselves. Those high-ranking politicians who travel in the same circles as high-ranking homosexuals consider it declasse to take a moral stand. They will not speak out on this issue, nor will they take to task those who refuse to publish or review books that dare to question the gay mythology. "Why would they not speak out?", we ask. Because the techniques of communication control, desensitization, jamming, shaming, and coercion have worked on both republican and democratic leadership alike, as they have on the public at large. This is dangerous for Nature will not tolerate a vacuum. But as leaders they have a responsibility to us all. These so-called "leaders" seek to survive in an empty territory between tolerance of homosexuality--which we totally endorse--and promotion and celebration of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. But this is a no-man's land, for he or she who will not publicly resist the promotion of homosexuality as normal has, in fact, endorsed it.

There is no in-between ground here, for, like it or not, this is a battle, and one is on one side of the line or one is on the other--there is no such thing as being neutral on this issue. Unpleasant as it is--we must face this reality. There is too much at stake. And so the purpose of NARTH is augmented to remind us all that we are American, that our nation's legacy is that we are a people who have always been able to think for ourselves. That this current battle is not being fought on the fields of Normandy or in the Persian Gulf, but that it is a battle for our minds--and that our minds must be strong--strong enough and aware enough to resist being taken over by the minds of others who would then destroy our hearts and tear apart our souls.

Gay friends of heterosexuals will not long remain friends should that heterosexual say to them "I love you, you have always been my friend. I would defend to the death your right to be gay and that you be free of persecution by anyone, but I also defend my right to say that I don't believe that homosexuality is normal and I don't want that falsehood taught to my child in school." All human discourse between friends would thereafter cease when addressing a gay activist. This is a case of loyalties, and the heterosexual would from that moment on be called "bigot," "unintelligent," "opinionated," or "homophobic."

There is no in-between ground. This is ultimately about the protection of America's youth from such groups as NAMBLA and militant homosexuals who seek to lower the age of consensual sexual intercourse between homosexual men and young boys to the age of fourteen (as in Hawaii, 1993) or sixteen (as in England, 1994). They have told us, "We're here. We're Queer. And we are coming after your children." How much more do we need to know?

Finally, I wish to end on a positive note. This has been a critical time and we have fought well in several battles. Lying corruption, misinformation, and thought control, in my opinion, will have their day and will pass on. History tells us that you cannot control the minds of people for too long for, in time, they will rise up and cast off itotalistic indoctrination. By 1996 there may be a major change. We must spend every effort increase our membership, to publish books and papers, and to resist being silenced. We must cling to our friends and advance our scientific ideas freely, and thus, I believe, through truth, sincerity, and perseverance, we will be victorious in protecting family life and furthering the mental health of the nation.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Analysis (Part 2)

ROBINSON: It's time for us to stop talking about being gay and start talking about God and telling the story of how God has acted in your life and in mine. And when we tell that story, people will come to see that the Jesus they know is the Jesus we know.

Analysis: Oh yes! Divert the attention away from the obvious controversy over elevating a person who thinks homosexual behavior is not sin (when the Bible CLEARLY says so), is unrepentant about such a sin, and is currently involved in homosexual sex with another male! This is the typical "gay mantra" device of homosexual activists. Steer people away from the unhealthy, abberant sex act and concentrate on only the 'good'. Well, that might work in secular humanism circles but it doesn't work at all for Bible-believing, born-again, Christ centered followers of Jesus Christ and His Word.

Sorry Gene. The "Jesus you know" is not the authentic Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, as He is revealed in the Scriptures. You are guilty of heresy and apostasy, exactly what is warned about in the book of Jude. More about this after I post Hudson's gobbledy-gook.

KING: Reverend Jo Hudson, you've heard our two distinguished members of the Episcopal faith. You're with the United Church of Christ.


KING: Where does that denomination stand?

HUDSON: Well, the denomination is radically different than the Episcopal Church in that the denomination lets congregations be self- determining and so they are in relationship by virtue of the fact that they covenant to be in relationship and to honor each other even though we may disagree.

Analysis: HUH?? The only thing that she is right about is when she says, "the denomination is radically different." Ya got that right! A "congregation that is self-determining?" Self-determining for what? For whom? Certainly not "determining" by the timeless, faithful, inerrant, infallible Word of God as revealed in the Scriptures! My next analysis portion will be long, but it will be necessary in order to reveal just how far this "reverend" is from God's Word. First, I will post the rest of her portion of this dialogue with King.

KING: So United Church of Christ in Miami could say no gays?

HUDSON: Right.

KING: And the one in Dallas as yours, could say yes?

HUDSON: Absolutely. And the thinking behind that is where the spirit of God is, where the risen Christ is. Then the people of God can determine what is best and listen for how God would have them be in the world.

KING: Are you a lesbian?


KING: What brought you to the church?

HUDSON: I fell in love with God.

KING: Didn't some of the teachings pretty much harm you, hurt you?

HUDSON: I never really...

KING: That it's a sin?

HUDSON: I never was -- well, they say that, you know, they say that women shouldn't preach in church, too. I have had to wrestle with the scriptures but the reality is is that I have found a relationship with God that I discovered in the church and want to be a part of a community of faith that brings that love to other people.

Analysis: Some of my regular readers may have already seen what I will copy and paste below, but I need to post it again to counter Hudson's opinion that sexually active practicing lesbian women is not sinful and that non-celibate "gay" clergy is OK. [Just a side note: substitute any other willful, non-repentant sinful behavior (e.g. adultery, fornication, polygamy, a thief, a murderer) and apply it to any clergyman. Would a true Christian church board or laity approve of such a person to lead their flock? Of course not!] First, notice that she slyly half-answered King's question. When he directly asked her if it bothered her, "that it's a sin" (meaning, obviously, lesbian sexual activity), all she said was, "well, they say that, you know..." then, she goes on to a completely different topic about "they say women shouldn't preach in church." Ignoring the precise subject involved in this controversy doesn't make it just go away, Ms. Hudson!

Many people similar to Ms. Hudson often say the "Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality." The following post will show how incorrect that premise really is.

Mission America statement:

Talking points from Mission America:

Consider these facts:

Jesus also never said anything about rape, incest or domestic violence. Are those things okay, too?

There are many teachings and deeds of Christ that are not included in the Gospel accounts, as John writes in John 21:25.

Christ did say that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9 ) Nothing is said about any other type of union.

When He discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Jewish law. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11) He warned people not only that the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts. (Matthew 5:28 ) And he shamed the woman at the well (John 4:18 ) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.

Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God’s wrath ( Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11,Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets clearly described these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood.

Christ was God incarnate (in the flesh) here on earth. He was the long-expected Messiah, which was revealed in Matthew 16:13- 20, Matthew 17:5-9, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 4:16-30, Luke 9: 18-21,John 4:25-26, John 8:57-59 and elsewhere. As one with God, He was present from the beginning (John 1: 1-13; Colossians 1:15-17; Ephesians 3:9 and elsewhere). So, Jesus was part of the Godhead as the laws were handed down through Moses to Israel and eventually to the whole world. This Old Testament law clearly prohibited homosexuality (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:18 and elsewhere). The apostles understood this also, as shown by Paul’s writing in Romans 1:24-27, Peter’s in 2 Peter 2:4-22, and John’s in Revelation 22:15.

So--the apostles, who were taught by Christ, clearly understood that homosexuality was a sin as it has always been. When people say, “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality,” they reveal that they really haven’t understood Scripture, or Who Christ is. Maybe some of these points can help them toward a clearer understanding.

On another message board where this was posted, there were two well-said comments:

Post ID: 709 Posted by: pool6x, 2005-09-17 02:13:00

This was an excellent reply based upon the truth of the Bible. Christ is God, the Holy Spirit (God also) inspired the Bible's writing, So when God declared homosexuality an abomination in the Old Testament, it was in fact Christ (God) who was the one declaring that. So, Christ did say a lot about homosexuality...everytime God says it in the Bible, Christ (part of the Godhead) is dittoing it.

Post ID: 716 Posted by: nitsuard, 2005-09-19 01:44:26

Excellent indeed! But I had a bad link to the original article and hope to read it b4 continuing my comments except to say that John 1 explains that Christ was GOD in the flesh and was the Creator who made everything, including every word written by man to be included in the Bible.

All of this information CLEARLY NEGATES what the homosexual behavior affirming "churches" claim. This is a perfect example of what the book of Jude predicts and warns will happen as we get closer and closer to the end times.

Note, especially, the following from Jude:

Old and New Apostates
5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.

Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned as an example for judgment! Specifically, "going after strange flesh" is "set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Defiling the flesh and rejecting authority (especially of the Bible and Orthodox Christianity) is mentioned as a cause for the coming judgment. People, this is serious stuff!! This is not to be taken lightly! Notice, also, that those who "defile the flesh and reject authority are also guilty of "speaking evil of dignitarties." Isn't this exactly what is happening in the homosexual behavior affirming churches? They particularly bash Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, any and all ex-gay ministry as "evil"...claiming that they are "homophobic," "bigoted," "hateful," "anti-gay," and the list goes on!

Want to know what is genuinely anti-gay my friends? It's when people commit heresy and apostasy within a Christian denomination telling it's followers that they need not repent of a particular sin (in this case, homosexual behavior)! They are leading them (or, in some cases leaving them) directly into the grip of Satan's fallen world of deception!

Matthew 16:23 - But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Harsh words spoken to Peter by Jesus when he was guilty of "savouresting not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." This is what the homosexual agenda movement is doing within the churches!

We are to be salt and light in this world! Not agree with the offence of Satan and follow things of men right into Satan's lair!

Acts 26:18 - To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

This was Jesus, appearing to Paul and speaking to him! Note these prior verses (NKJV):

Acts 26:15 - And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

Act 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

Act 26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and [from] the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
Acts 26:18 - To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

*more to come*

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Analysis (Part 1)

Larry King (KING) : Bishop Robinson, why do you want to be an official in a church that doesn't want you?

BISHOP GENE ROBINSON: Because the Episcopal Church is an amazing institution, because it so much wants to be a vehicle for God's love in the world. We've struggled with lots of issues before and we have come to know of God's expansive love. We've changed our minds about people of color and women and their places in the church. And we are now in a family struggle to express God's love for all of God's children, include God's gay and lesbian children.

Analysis: God does love all of His children. That's not the proper question to ask. The question is whether or not we admit that we are sinners in need of the Savior, Jesus Christ. When we confess our sin (ALL sin), repent (turn away from and make every effort not to return to the same sins)and ask Jesus Christ to indwell our hearts through the power of Cross and Resurrection to life eternal, it is then that we become children OF GOD.

This is not a "family struggle" as Robinson claims. It's a pride of sin struggle and either God has possession of our bodies, souls and spirits, or pride of self and this life allows us to die in our own sin. Jesus said, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own soul?" Indeed.

KING: Canon Anderson, is membership dwindling because of this?

REV. CANON DAVID C. ANDERSON, PRES/CEO AMERICAN ANGLICAN COUNCIL: Membership in the Episcopal Church has been dwindling since 1965, progressively at about the rate of 35,000, 36,000 a year and that has continued through the time since Gene Robinson has been a bishop.

Analysis: Why would membership dwindle if all was "right" with this decision? The fact that many Episcopalians want to adhere to Biblical truth on the issue of homosexuality and believe that it is sin to actively engage in homosexual behavior, then there can be no reconciliation between what the Bible says and what Gene Robinson would want them to believe...that his lifestyle is somehow "blessed" by God.

KING: So it hasn't increased?

ANDERSON: Up to the latest figures in 2004. We believe that since 2004, the rate has increased but there aren't hard data yet to examine.

Analysis: The hard numbers of declining membership indicate that many are very displeased with the appointment of an active homosexual as bishop. I have read many articles that indicate a split is brewing (or, in some cases has already occured) because of this volatile issue.

KING: Why did you want to be a bishop, Bishop Robinson?

ROBINSON: Actually, at first, I didn't want to be a bishop. God had to chase me for quite a long time before I would say yes. I knew this would be controversial and yet sometimes God asks us to do things that are hard. And in my prayer life, what I discovered was that God was promising to be faithful to me as God had always been faithful to me in my life and would stand by me during this very difficult time if I would just struggle and strive to listen to and for his voice.

Analysis: Robinson should have listened to that first instinct. It would have negated much of the grief that traditional bishops, priests and laity have endured. Unfortunately, it appears that his ego and pride got the best of him and he decided that God wanted him to do this. Whose "voice" was he really listening to? The Holy Spirit of God does not lead followers to do something that is contrary to Scripture. This appointment was in direct violation of what Scripture teaches about proper sexual relations and/or purity for priests, bishops, etc.

Exodus 19:22 - And let the priests also, which come near to the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them.

1 Thessalonians 4:7 - For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

Hebrews 12:10 - For they verily for a few days chastened [us] after their own pleasure; but he for [our] profit, that [we] might be partakers of his holiness

Hebrews 12:12,13 - And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.

Follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Hbr 12:15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble [you], and thereby many be defiled;

Hbr 12:16 Lest there [be] any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

Hbr 12:17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

KING: Bishop Robinson, were you ever married?

ROBINSON: Yes, I was very happily married and I have two wonderful daughters and two granddaughters.

Analysis: Very happily married? To a woman and had two daughters? So, what was it...selfishness that ended this "happy married" life?

KING: So you lived a lie?

ROBINSON: No. I wouldn't say I lived a lie. I had a wonderful relationship with the woman that I was married to. I had told her within a month of meeting her that I had struggled with this issue before. I had gotten to therapy to try to change. I had done all the things that gay and lesbian people try to do to fit in, to deny who they are and to change themselves, and I had prayed about it. And yet, this is not something that one does. This is something that one is. And that's what's so important for people to understand. God made me this way and declared me good. And that's, that's something that I have laid claim to.

Analysis: Where are the Scriptures that back up any of his claims here? There are none! However, when one confesses, repents and gives his life over to Christ, he becomes a new person inside.

2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

KING: Canon Anderson, since we're told that God loves everyone, that would have to include gay people. What do you have against Bishop Robinson being a bishop in your church?

ANDERSON: Well, God certainly loves Gene Robinson. Gene Robinson is a child of God just as I am and others are. But the fact is that certain aspects of his life, in particular, his being an open homosexual, disqualify him for leadership in the Christian church, not just the Anglican Church, but in the Christian church, and it's that part that disqualifies him from leadership. God would love to see him transformed. God doesn't create a person homosexual. How they become homosexual or feel that inclination is unclear, but certainly people can be transformed back to a heterosexual life.

Analysis: Well said!!

KING: If it's a choice, Canon Anderson, did you choose to be heterosexual and if so, how do you choose it?

ANDERSON: I think the heterosexualists, the standard default setting, if you will, and whether you start with scripture and God's account of how things were created or, in fact, if you start with Charles Darwin and evolution, you come to the same point, that men were meant for women and women were meant for men.

Analysis: Scripture is filled with passages emphasizing that God created them male and female. Jesus, in his own words, reiterated this truth. Here's a segment on truth from the "Day of Truth" website:

"We are on the side of a serious social debate about the effects of the homosexual agenda on our society. Jesus Christ said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). In over one hundred passages in the four gospel accounts of Christ’s life, He either begins with the phrase, “I tell you the truth…” or identifies Himself as the source of revealed truth. As Christians, this provides us with the assurance that Christ is the one and only source of Truth of God.

When there is no standard for truth - when truth means different things to different people - the consequences can be tragic. Most people would agree that the commandment from God, “Thou shalt not kill” is truth. But what happens if someone rejects that as truth, and their “truth” allows them to engage in the killing of innocent human beings? We are simply pointing to what our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, recognize: that there are absolute truths, and that such truth comes from our Creator, God."

Even when people like Gene Robinson attempt to share their perceived truth on issues such as homosexuality, there is no doubt that God has expressed His views regarding this issue. They are written down in His Eternal Word, the Bible. All the refutation done (or attempted) by finite man will never change the unchangable, infallible truth of God's Word. This is why the fight continues within the Episcopal, Anglican, Evangelical (or any other kind of Christian denomination) churches because there will always be a faithful remnant who will hold fast to God's Truth through the Person of His Revealed Living Word (Jesus Christ) as well as His Revealed written Word, the Bible.

KING: So what, then, does someone like Bishop Robinson do if he has all of these feelings but he's a good Episcopal priest and he wants to be a bishop and he wants to lead a flock, what does he do?

ANDERSON: He conforms his life to the scriptural standards and lives a chaste and celibate life honoring God and honoring God's commandments.

KING: Bishop Robinson, how would you respond?

ROBINSON: Well, I would say that none of us are able to conform our lives to scriptural standards. In the gospel of Luke, for instance, Jesus said if you want to be a follower of mine you must give up all your possessions. I don't see many of us doing that. We all fall short in one way or another. The miracle, the good news, is that we're not worthy, but we're made worthy by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's the good news we have to give to the world and God has said to me and to all of God's children what God said to Jesus at his baptism, you are my beloved. In you, I am well pleased. The world is desperate to know a God like that.

Analysis: This is so blatantly unscriptural. Where do I begin?

Let's take it one sentence at a time.

1. ROBINSON: "Well, I would say that none of us are able to conform our lives to scriptural standards."

Analysis: This is true. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God.

Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 5:6-11 - Christ in Our Place
6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

2. ROBINSON: "In the gospel of Luke, for instance, Jesus said if you want to be a follower of mine you must give up all your possessions. I don't see many of us doing that. We all fall short in one way or another. The miracle, the good news, is that we're not worthy, but we're made worthy by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Analysis: What Robinson conveniently leaves out is that once we confess, repent and ask Jesus Christ to indwell our hearts, we become a new creation. Willful sinning is not to be on our radar screen! This is where we get the saying, "God forbid" from. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Not one jot nor tittle shall pass from the law until all is complete. The salvation, mercy and grace of Jesus Christ is not to be used as an excuse to continue sinning!

1Cr 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make [them] the members of an harlot? God forbid.

Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Gal 3:21 [Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

3. ROBINSON: "That's the good news we have to give to the world and God has said to me and to all of God's children what God said to Jesus at his baptism, you are my beloved. In you, I am well pleased. The world is desperate to know a God like that."

Analysis: Before the Good News of the Gospel can be had, the bad news of sin must be realized by the sinner, confessed, repented of and dealt with through the blood of Jesus Christ at the cross. Is God pleased with willful sinning Christians who would make light of the terrible penalty that Christ paid on the cross for their sin? I think not! A "bishop" who doesn't even acknowledge what God clearly calls sin as sin, is negating one of the sins of man that Jesus died on the cross for! No. God would not be pleased with that.

Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Hebrews 13:8-21

8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 9 Do not be carried *about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them.

10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. 13 Therefore let us go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach. 14 For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come. 15 Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. 16 But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

Prayer Requested

18 Pray for us; for we are confident that we have a good conscience, in all things desiring to live honorably. 19 But I especially urge you to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.

Benediction, Final Exhortation, Farewell

20 Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in *you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

(bold, italics mine)

* more to come*